<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (3) TMI 243 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211444</link>
    <description>Secondment-linked payments to overseas group entities were treated as income in the hands of those entities, because the secondees remained their employees, the foreign entities retained the salary obligation and the Indian company merely recovered the cost. The arrangement was not treated as a true reimbursement or as diversion of income by overriding title. The amounts were also held taxable in India because the overseas entities had a service permanent establishment in India, even though the payments were not characterised as fees for technical or included services under the treaty. As the sums were chargeable to tax in India, withholding tax under section 195 was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 243 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211444</link>
      <description>Secondment-linked payments to overseas group entities were treated as income in the hands of those entities, because the secondees remained their employees, the foreign entities retained the salary obligation and the Indian company merely recovered the cost. The arrangement was not treated as a true reimbursement or as diversion of income by overriding title. The amounts were also held taxable in India because the overseas entities had a service permanent establishment in India, even though the payments were not characterised as fees for technical or included services under the treaty. As the sums were chargeable to tax in India, withholding tax under section 195 was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>